Standards Committee Activities 2020
1) Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 843, Conversion of Greek characters into Latin characters
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 843 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard establishes a system for the transliteration and/or transcription of Greek characters into Latin characters. This system provides for two sets of rules, each constituting a type of conversion.
2) Voted REVISE with Comments on Systematic Review – ISO 214, Abstracts for publications and documentation
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 214 be confirmed, revised, or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard presents guidelines for the preparation and presentation of abstracts of documents. Emphasis is placed on the abstracts prepared by the authors of primary documents, and on their publication, because such abstracts can be both helpful to the reader of these documents and reproducible with little or no change in secondary publications and services.
Comments:
ASIST believes that review with attention to non-print implications for abstracts would be warranted. The examples might also be expanded. There’s no mention of data repositories, which could be salient in some disciplines.
There are also the trends of “publishing” research datasets. More European countries and USA have guidelines and strategies these three years. The datasets have been required to be made FAIR, the W3C DACT version 2 released this year made real useful recommendations. Yet, currently various recommendations are all more on the model, structureM and processes, some addressed data values, but not on the contents like abstracts.
Structured abstracts also become popular in non-English speaking countries’ publications. On the other hand, the structures may need to be more standardized.
Comments provided by Gail Thornburg and Marcia Zeng
1) Voted YES on Approval of Proposed New Work Item: Update NISO RP-8-2008, Journal Article Versions (JAV)
Question:
Do you approve of a Proposed New Work Item: Update NISO RP-8-2008, Journal Article Versions (JAV)?
Description:
This ballot is to approve a proposed new work item to Update NISO RP-8-2008, Journal Article Versions (JAV) [https://www.niso.org/publications/niso-rp-8-2008-jav] to take into account publication practices that have been adopted over the past 12 years, especially the increasing circulation of preprints and the application of DOIs across the landscape.
2) Voted CONFIRM on ISO 10754, Extension of Cyrillic alphabet coded character set for non-Slavic languages
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 10754 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard specifies a set of 93 graphic characters with their coded representations. It consists of a code table and a legend showing each graphic, its use and its name.
3) Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 10957, International standard music number (ISMN)
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 10957 be confirmed, revised, or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard specifies the International standard music number (ISMN), which is a means of uniquely identifying editions of noted music
4) Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 2146, Registry services for libraries and related organizations
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 2146 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard establishes the rules for registries operating in a network environment to provide the information about collections, parties, activities and services needed by libraries and related organizations to manage their collections and deliver information and documentation services across a range of applications and domains
5) Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 7154, Bibliographic filing principles
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 7154 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard defines generalized bibliographic filing principles to be incorporated into the bibliographic filing rules of individual bibliographies, libraries, and documentation centres as well as those of entire nations or language groups.
6) Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 9984, Transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 9984 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard establishes a system for the transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters in accordance with the principles of stringent conversion in order to permit international information exchange, particularly by electronic means.
The Standards Committee cast the following vote:
Voted APPROVE with Comments on FDIS 3297, International standard serial number (ISSN)
Question:
Do you approve of the technical content of the final draft of ISO/FDIS 3297?
Description:
This document defines and promotes the use of a standard code (ISSN) for the unique identifier of serials and other continuing resources.
Comments:
- Scope (Page1), [the medium of production] bullet 1: blog and in bullet 2: websites. They seem to be similar; Is it better to put the blog in row 2 (next to the website)?
- Display (Page8): One of the retrieval issues occurs due the difference in data entry. Is it possible to clarify (obligatory note) that the ISBN enter/ record in English?
- ISSN Machine legibility (Page9): Isn’t it better to add UniMARC examples to other tag formats? As you know many countries still use UniMARC as the data tagging format.
The ASIST Standards Committee just cast the following votes
Voted REVISE on Systematic Review – ISO 999, Guidelines for the content, organization and presentation of indexes
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 999 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard offers guidelines for the content, organization and presentation of indexes.
Voted REVISE on Systematic Review – ISO 5963, Methods for examining documents, determining their subjects, and selecting indexing terms
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 5963 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This international standard describes recommended procedures for examining documents, determining their subjects, and selecting appropriate indexing terms.
Comments:
The following comment was submitted for both standards:
ASIST would suggest that for both ISO 999 and 5963 revision is the appropriate action, as these are quite outdated. New environment since 1985 (ISO 5963) and 1996 (ISO 999) has changed a lot and should be addressed accordingly. Some obvious outdated info, e.g., are the ISO standards mentioned (e.g., for thesauri) which was replaced by newer standards already for nearly 10 years. Both of these are still very useful and reverent, though. They should be kept, although it is time to revise them both.
In addition for 5963 the standard be cut in two. Back of the book indexing and other pre-coordinate systems should be in one. Online Indexing for search retrieval indexing using a taxonomy / thesaurus should be Separate.
Comments supplied by Marcia Zeng and Marjorie Hlava
The Standards committee cast the following votes in ISO
Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 10160, Open Systems Interconnection – Interlibrary Loan Application Service Definition
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 10160 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard defines the services for Interlibrary Loan. These services are provided by the use of the ILL protocol in conjunction with the supporting telecommunications services which might be a store-and-forward messaging service.
Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 17316, International standard link identifier (ISLI)
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 17316 be confirmed, revised, or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard specifies an identifier of links between entities (or their names) in the field of information and documentation. These entities can be documents, media resources, people or more abstract items such as times or places.
Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 21047, International Standard Text Code (ISTC)
Question:
Do you recommend ISO 21047 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard specifies the International Standard Text Code (ISTC) which is applicable to any textual work, whenever there is an intention to produce such a textual work in the form of one or more manifestations.
Voted APPROVE on ISO/FDIS 3166-1, Codes for representation of names of countries – Part 1: Country code
Question:
Do you approve of the technical content of ISO/FDIS 3166-1?
Description:
This document specifies basic guidelines for the implementation and maintenance of country codes.
Voted APPROVE on ISO/FDIS 3166-2, Codes for the representation of names and countries – Part 2: Country subdivision
Question:
Do you approve of the technical content of ISO/FDIS 3166-2?
Description:
This document specifies basic guidelines for the implementation and maintenance of country subdivision codes.
Voted APPROVE on ISO/FDIS 3166-3, Codes for the representation of names of countries – Part 3: Code for formerly used names of countries
Question:
Do you approve of the technical content of ISO/FDIS 3166-3?
Description:
This document specifies basic guidelines for the implementation and maintenance of codes for formerly used names of countries.
Voted APPROVE on ISO/DIS 24083, International archives statistics
Question:
Do you approve of the technical content of ISO/DIS 24083?
Description:
This International Standard specifies guidelines for the archives community on the collection and reporting of statistics for strategic planning, internal management of archives, and other statistical uses.
Voted DISAPPROVE onSO/DIS 690, Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources
Question:
Do you approve the technical content of ISO/DIS 690?
Description:
This document provides guidelines for the preparation of bibliographic references. It also gives guidelines for the preparation of citations in works that are not themselves primarily bibliographical.
Comments:
Members of the ASIST Standards Committee have reviewed with expertise in this area have reviewed the standard. While they have many positive statements about improvements that have been made (reflected in the comments) there are enough negative things they still found that we believe justifies a vote of DISAPPROVE
Specific Comments:
Overall
Much more detailed and reorganized compared with working draft. Many media-specific improvements, and efforts to reconcile standard with FRBR manifestation, expression, and work.
More attention to distinguishing terms e.g. for corporate names, e.g. musical group, spacecraft.
Specific
8.7.3.2 Roles: The examples are a little vague here (film of musical performances).
EXAMPLE 9 MOZART, Wolfgang Amadeus. The Magic Flute. [DVD]. TAYMOR, Julie (director). Metropolitan
Opera. LEVINE, James (conductor). Sony Classical, 2011.
EXAMPLE 10 METALLICA. Orgullo, Pasión, y Gloria: Tres Noches en la Ciudad de México. [DVD]. ISHAM, Wayne
(director). Universal Records, 2009.
7.11.1 We Like the Music example comment on manifestation and work identifier numbers in one reference, for use in collation or discrimination. (ISWC , ISRC )
7.3.4 Long title – ellipsis problem w generic titles is better handled, or at least acknowledged.
8.4.5 Monograph series, Example 8. Citation of 2d version reference should be cleaned up a little. “peer]” cf. Preprint in previous example..
Maps – Details for description of maps notably enhanced.
Music improvements
• Title inclusion of Opus requirements.
8.9.4 – roles of subsidiary creators needed for specificity This is an improvement though without specific examples of citations.
8.9.6 – As a component part [aggregation]
Somewhere in this section the document might well reference the use of manifestation and work identifiers in the 2d paragraph of 7.11.1 (International Standard Identifiers). This is a good illustration of the finding problems of components of aggregate works.
The last paragraph, starting “In sheet music, if a particular bar is required.” — ?? Doesn’t this belong in section 8.9.5 Printed music ?? Don’t quite see its pertinence to 8.9.6.
Archival
Section 8.12 Archival materials. Note (8.12.3.1) on likelihood of generic titles (Correspondence) is a clarification which improves this.
Section 8.13 Research Datasets
8.13.3.2 Roles are described usefully. Not in a position to comment on other parts of this section.
Section 8.14 Web sites – have not reviewed in any depth.
Section 8.15 Social media and services — can’t comment on this section.
Section 8.16 Unpublished information resources
8.16.8 Preprint etc. If. peer review iscompleted ,why wouldn’t this be “Manuscript accepted for publication” be used, and “Manuscript submitted for publication” indicate the pre-peer-review submitted paper? The section after all emphasizes that the preprint and published may be quite different.
it used the definitions of FRBR, added explanation and notes for Work and Expression. It has a line “[SOURCE: ISO 5127:2017, 3.2.1.08, modified – added reference to FRBR.]”
If we get into the details, we need to indicate that FRBR family models are out of date and replaced by the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM), approved in 2017. ( World-wide review conducted in early 2016. a final draft was accepted at the FRBR Review Group level by the end of 2016. The IFLA Professional Committee formally adopted it 2017-08-18). Even though these two entities are kept, the references should be referring to LRM
Appendix A. (Informative) Citation systems. In the Section of A.2 “Name and date system (Harvard system)”, it provides the Harvard style only, as a “name and date system”. It mentioned “commonly referred to as the Harvard system, the year element is inserted after the creator. This rule differs from the preferred order of elements described in Clause 8.” This statement is ok, but the system example is not complete, as there are other citation format (e.g., Chicago B) also has ‘author-date’ style [www.chicagomanualofstyÂle.org/tools_citationguiÂde/…
The issue is that the only examples given for the ‘author-date’ system is this one, which only includes ‘Last name, plus First name’s initial’, not a full name. Even though it is true that Harvard system is this way, the ISO standard should provide at least another system that include the full names in the citations (see link to the Chicago Manual of Style link above).
In summary, the existing citation system that to be included in an ISO standard, even as an appendix, it not inclusive and could be misleading.
The problem of this kind ‘Last name, plus First name’s initial’ has been a big problem in the information age. If you search a popular last name and an initial, in Google Scholar or any of the academic databases, you will get so much fake information, not to mention the citation statistics. Even though this is not what the ISO standard is dealing with, only including this style and all examples like that (on page 106, A.2.3.2 section), will be misleading.
Voted CONFIRM on Systematic Review – ISO 15706-1, International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN
Question:
Do you recommend that ISO 15706-1 be confirmed, revised or withdrawn?
Description:
This International Standard establishes and defines a voluntary standard numbering system for the unique and international identification of audiovisual works.
This is the 5-year review of this standard.
The standards committee voted YES on New Work Item, Revise ANSI/NISO/LBC Z39.78-2000 (R2018) Library Binding standard to adjust minimum specifications for cover materials that are suitable for library collections and reliably available for purchase.
Question:
Should the work item to revise ANSI/NISO/LBC Z39.78-2000 (R2018) be approved?
Description:
This ballot is to approve a proposed new work item to revise ANSI/NISO/LBC Z39.78-2000 (R2018), Library Binding.
Rationale: A material specified in the standard is no longer available. Libraries and binders subject to the standard in their contracts are ceasing operations. Work item sponsors believe another material (indicated in previous versions of the standard) may be used with no loss of quality